Theo Van Dinter writes: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:19:07AM -0800, John Myers wrote: > > I'm not so big on turning off the functionality. We shouldn't erect > > barriers against our being able to later publish full rules through > > sa-update. > > My POV is that we will never publish full rules again (so far, everything > we would have previously (circa v2.[234]) used a full rule for is better > handled by code that targets what we want,) and we actively discourage > others from writing and using full rules. Therefore I think we should > definitely erect barriers against being able to publish full rules! :) > > I don't want to get rid of them altogether, but if someone wants to use > them I think they need to actively think about what the issues are and > then do something to allow use if they decide full rules are worth it.
I'm not keen on the proposal, sorry. *We* may not have full rules in the core ruleset, but I'm pretty sure SARE and other third parties have a few. SpamAssassin isn't just a bundled set of rules -- it's a platform, too ;) Changing the platform -- in a backwards incompatible way -- is a bad thing to do imo. --j.
